Former Fish & Wildlife Officer Charlotte “Charlee” Tanner still carries the guilt of a tragic drowning accident that occurred on her watch. She hoped moving back home to the wilds of central Florida would provide a safe haven—until she learns the death was no accident, and she’s the intended target.

… But no wilder than their passion.

Tough and decisive, Lieutenant Hunter Boudreau loves his new job as a law enforcement officer with the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission. Charlee is his best friend, so when she comes under fire, he’s not letting her out of his sight until the killer is caught. But Charlee won’t sit by and let anyone else die for her.

As danger closes in and Charlee and Hunter’s attraction threatens to consume them, Charlee has to decide if she can trust Hunter. And to save Charlee, Hunter will have to trust her, too.

Review:

Beyond Risk starts out solid–we’re thrown right into the action, with hints that there’s a history there for at least one character (Charlee) that might be influencing what’s happening now…or is it all a coincidence?

(Spoiler: it’s not a coincidence.)

Really wanting–no, needing to know what is going on, why, and who’s behind it all kept me turning the pages even when the story started to go a little out of control. There’s a whole lot of attempted murder here (too much? I lean toward yes)–not to mention actual murder–that ultimately I don’t think really matched up all that well with the motive we’re eventually given. Maybe more POV–with, I hesitate to say it, flashbacks, perhaps?–from the antagonist could have helped here?

Only if it didn’t add pages on, though–at 400+ it’s already too long…

I liked Charlee and Hunter, and though they went to the I love yous a bit fast given the story’s timeline, they’ve known each other a while (though we don’t see or hear too much about that either…) so it didn’t feel too unrealistic.

Verdict: this was a new-to-me-author that I’d probably give another try in the future, in the hopes that the writing on the next one I do would be a bit tighter.